Oil removal from waste waters

ABSTRACT

A process for the removal of oil and oily organic contaminants from waste waters using magnetite (Fe3O4) is disclosed.

United States Patent Lorene et al.

[ Oct. 23, 1973 OIL REMOVAL FROM WASTE WATERS Inventors: Walter F. Lorenc, Harvey; James A.

Hyde, Downers Grove, both of 111.

Nalco Chemical Company, Chicago, 111.

Filed: Dec. 17, 1969 Appl. No.: 885,990

Assignee:

U.S. Cl 210/30, 210/40, 210/DlG. 21 Int. Cl. B01d 15/06 Field of Search 210/36, 40, 222,

210/223, DIG. 21

References Cited ,UNITED STATES PATENTS 1/1945 Tymstra et a1 210/36 3,358,838 12/1967 Kosar et al 210/223 X 3,717,573 2 1973 war 210 40 3,142,638 7/1964 Blaisdell et a1 ..210/52 3,635,819 1/1972 Kaiser 210/40 [57] ABSTRACT A process for the removal of oil and oily organic contaminants from waste waters using magnetite (Fe O is disclosed.

7 Claims, No Drawings OIL REMOVAL FROM WATERS INTRODUCTION Waste waters containing either dispersed or emulsified oil present a disposal problem. Due to the recent stress on water pollution, these waste waters cannot be emptied into our streams, etc. There is a need to develop an adequate and efficient process for removing this oil. In the past, adsorbents such as asbestos have been used for this purpose. The main problem associated with light asbestos particles and similar adsorbents is that they cannot be easily removed from the waste water. Chemicals are often needed to form a floc of the asbestos so that it will rise to the top of the waste water treating area and can be separated by skimming, centrifugation and other appropriate means.

It would be a great advantage to the art if a process could be devised in which this oil could be adsorbed and the adsorbent efficiently removed from the waste water.

It would be a further advantage to the art if this adsorbent was relatively heavy so that it would sink to the THE INVENTION In order to accomplish the above goals which are the objects of this invention, an aqueous liquid which contains suspended or dispersed oil or oily 'organic contaminants can be treated with magnetite particles. The process of treating aqueous liquids for the purpose of clarification comprises the steps of:

1. adding the magnetite particles to the aqueous liq- 2. agitating the aqueous liquid and the magnetite particles thoroughly;

3. contacting the oil and the magnetite so as to provide adsorption; and

4. removing the magnetite particles containing the adsorbed oil.

There are many convenient methods of removing the magnetite particles afteradsorption. These methods may be filtration, magnetic means, settling, etc. The magnetite can be regenerated using different solvents to extract the oil or other organic contaminants. The organic contaminants could also be removed by burning. The magnetite particles would lose some activity but could be returned to the aqueous liquid for further adsorption. A

The particular substance used in the preferred embodiment of this invention is magnetite. Other oxides of iron have been tried separately, such as Fe O and FeO but have not been found as effective as the Fe O which is the combination of FeO and Fe O The magnetite particles should have a measurement in one direction within the range of from 1 to 100 microns and preferably within the range of from 20-60 microns; and more preferably about 45 microns.

A particularly preferred magnetite particulate substance which isreadily available and economical are those oxides of iron produced as a by-product in the oxygen blowing of iron and in the oxygen openhearth process to produce steel. These by-products are commercially available from many steel mills and are supplied as particulates which contain magnetite. A preferred group of these materials are fine iron oxide powders which contain approximately 80% by weight of magnetite and which have an average particle size ranging from 2060 microns.

Still further species of highly effective magnetite particles may be found among clays which have been treated so that their component particles have at least a monomolecular coating of Fe O The amount of magnetite used will vary from as little as 5 ppm to as much as 3,000-4,000 ppm depending upon the system treated and all other variables such as type of contaminant. Routine experimentation can readily determine the optimum quantities.

This invention can be better understood by reference to the following examples.

EXAMPLE I A waste water containing 500 parts per million of oil (an anionic, emulsified oil) was rapidly mixed at turbulent conditions with magnetite at a ratio of 40:1 by weight, of magnetite to oil, for a period of ten minutes. Aliquot samples were removed each minute and analyzed for total carbon on a Total Carbon Analyzer. The carbon content remained constant at 16.5 ppm at 2 to 10 minutes. A hexane extractable test was also run and showed only 2 ppm oil remaining in the water. The hexane extractable test consists of mixing a known amount of hexane with an aliquot sample of the waste water. The liquids are allowed to separate. The hexane layer containing the oil is heated in a tared beaker to drive off hexane, The oil content of the original sample can then be calculated.

EXAMPLE II 10011 by weight.

As previously stated, the magnetite can be separated from the effluent water by magnetic devices, centrifugation, settling, or filtration. The oil can be removed from the magnetite by solvent extraction, burning, volatilization, steam stripping, chemical cleansers, pH control, or biological methods. The regenerated magnetite can then be recycled through the system. A convenient method of removing the magnetite particles is by the use of a magnetic field of sufficient flux density to attract the particles. The aqueous liquid so treated is then removed from the area of the magnetic field, thereby providing a relatively clear liquid, or a liquid containing substantially less oil than was present before the treatment.

Another magnetic means of removing the magnetite is by magnetic drum separators.

Rapid turbulent mixing is necessary to effect efficient oil removal by contacting the oil droplets with the adsorbent.

A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reference to the following table.

centrifugation, and magnetic means.

TABLE 1 Oil content as determined by different methods Amt. Ratio Total carbon (ppm) oil magnetite/ added oil Hexane (ppm) Influent Effluent lnfiuent Effluent i noticed from this table, the amount of oil added was higher than the actual amount of oil in the influent as determined by the hexane and the Total Carbon methods. One reason for this is the fact that some of the contained emulsifying agents that are not soluble in hexane. One of the reasons the total carbon analysis does not account for the total amount of oil added by weight is that the total carbon analyzer records results as ppm carbon. The oil added is not 100% carbon, and therefore, the carbon analyzer only records the percentage of oil which is actually carbon.

The samples in Table II were run to determine the effect of mixing. After the magnetite was added, samples were taken every minute for ten minutes. The samples were then analyzed for total carbon. The results are listed. The magnetite was separated using filtration,

' would have much less adsorption capacity.

Table 111 lists the effects of regeneration. The test consists of adding the magnetite according to the process of this invention. The saturated magnetite was then separated by filtration and the adsorbed oil was removed using the specific solvent listed in the table. The regenerated magnetite was then recycled and treated as fresh magnetite according to the process of this invention. This regeneration cycle can be contin-- ued until the desired oil removal is no longer attainable.

' rABLE Iii-REGENERATION 1nfluentoil* Effluent-oil content content in ppm in ppm determined determined byby- Ratio Solvent Sx (magnetite/ used for Hexane Hexane No. oil) regenerating ext. TC ext. TC

3**.. 10:1 851 6 10:1 1,1.1-Trichlo- 851 166 roethane.

*The oil isa parafiiniq nonionic. emulsified rolling gil, V

1000ppni by weight ofa paraffinic, nonionic, emulsified rolling oil was added to the influent.

lja stly, Tabl e lv 51565211586651 high temperatures. These tests were performed to determine if heat would affect the oil adsorption capacity of magnetite. This shows that there is a substantial loss in adsorption capacity due to heat treatment. The heat oxidizes the surface of the magnetite and thus decreases the oil adsorption capacity.

Therefore, if heat was used after adsorption to volatilize the lower boiling organic contaminants, the heat would substantially reduce the adsorption capacity of the magnetite. Although heat regeneration might be economically feasible, the regenerated magnetite TABLE 11 TC ppm carbon after treatment Approximately 1000 ppm emulsified nonionic oil was added to the water before treatment Approximately 500 ppm nonionic oil was added to the water before treatment Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll. 12, l3, 15, 16,

ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio ratio Min. 10:] 5:1 2.5:1 20:1 10:1 20:1 10:1 10:1 5:1 40:1 20:1 10:1 30:1 20:1 20:1

' The oil used in these samples was an anionic, emulsified. industrial waste oil that contained 1784 PP heXane ib es.

4 This was an anionic emulsified oil. 5 The magnetite was separated using magnetic means.

6 Approximately 1000 ppm nonionic oil was added to the water before treatment.

TABLE IV.EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE-RATIO 6F MAGNETITE/OIL 10=1 Influent oil Effluent oil content in ppm content in ppm Sample determined by determined by No. Temperature hexane ext. hexane ext.

SUMMARY m 6 which contain suspended and dispers ed oil wfiiai'caaaprises the steps of:

A. adding magnetite particles to said aqueous liquids; B. contacting the oil and the magnetite by thoroughly agitating the aqueous liquid and the magnetite particles to provide adsorption; and C. removing the magnetite particles containing the adsorbed oil. 2. The process of claim 1 in which the removal of the magnetite particles is by filtration.

3. The process of claim 1 in which the removal of the magnetite particles is by magnetic means.

4. The process of claim 1 which includes the additional step of:

regenerating the magnetite by removing the oil. 5. The process of claim 4 in which the removal of the oil is achieved by solvent extraction.

6. The process of claim 4 in which the removal of the oil is achieved by burning.

7. The process of claim 4 in which the regenerated magnetite is returned to the aqueous liquid for further adsorption of the oily waste. 

2. The process of claim 1 in which the removal of the magnetite particles is by filtration.
 3. The process of claim 1 in which the removal of the magnetite particles is by magnetic means.
 4. The process of claim 1 which includes the additional step of: regenerating the magnetite by removing the oil.
 5. The process of claim 4 in which the removal of the oil is achieved by solvent extraction.
 6. The process of claim 4 in which the removal of the oil is achieved by burning.
 7. The process of claim 4 in which the regenerated magnetite is returned to the aqueous liquid for further adsorption of the oily waste. 